The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why is protecting life a crime? > Comments

Why is protecting life a crime? : Comments

By Graham Preston, published 2/12/2004

Graham Preston argues that when it comes to unborn children we are hypocritical

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
To me if you want abortion to be illegal then the following criteria would have to be met first:
- reversible contraception that is 100% effective rather than 99% (applied to both women and men at puberty and only reversed after they made the decision to become parents)
- the ability to transfer the foetus out of the woman to mature elsewhere (in cases where the woman's life is at risk)

I believe it is a woman's right to decide whether she brings a child into this world or not from her body, and the community as a whole is better off leaving that decision up to the individual whose life it effects the most.

After these conditions are met one could then argue that the mother has no right to reverse her decision to become a parent after she has already made it and created life, but I don't believe that in the current cirumstances such a decision has been made. Sexual activity and intimacy are part of a normal & healthy life, not a decision to become a parent.

In the end it is a woman's right to choose the course of her life, so I would suggest to those who don't approve of abortions that their efforts would be better directed towards making them unnecessary.
Posted by ailix, Tuesday, 7 December 2004 3:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I heartily agree with everything Graham Preston wrote. It is time that we acknowledged and protected our smallest citizens. The argument that women have a right to their own bodies does not apply, when they are pregnant, to the baby because they are carrying a separate entity. I feel sincerely for those women who have becaome pregnant and feel alone but there are good organisations who will help if they ask for it. It is absurd that we, through our taxes, pay for thousands of abortions every year while our population is plummeting. In the meantime we rightly spend enormous money on keeping babies alive born prematurely who are kept alive because their parents "wanted" them! It is time we reconsidered our attitude to abortion in this country and welcomed our future generations instead of annhihilating them just because they are not "wanted" at that particular time.
Posted by Nola, Wednesday, 8 December 2004 9:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women should not be treated by the community as breeders where their ability to raise population levels takes precedence over their right to control what goes on in their own bodies. It is not a separate entity until it is born.
Posted by ailix, Wednesday, 8 December 2004 2:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question that needs to be answered is this: When does a foetus become a 'person'?

To kill a person is murder. Some argue a foetus only becomes a person when they can breathe on their own outside the womb. Others say once the foetus enters the third trimester, some say at 22 weeks - there are many differing opinions.

But this just raises a more fundamental question: What criteria shall we choose to determine whether a foetus is a person or not?

It can't be whether they can breathe on their own or not since someone on a respirator is still regarded as a person and killing them would be murder. It can't be any other physical or intellectual capability because the handicapped are regarded as persons.

Therefore, the only logical criteria is if the foetus is a human foetus then it should be given the status of 'person'. This would be from the time when the ovum is fertilised and contains the complete blueprint for a fully functional human being.

Any other choice is arbitrary and will always invite the question 'What significant change occurs to the foetus at this age that warrants its status to change to become a person?'. For example, if we choose 35 weeks, what corresponding developmental change occurs during the period between 34 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 minutes and a full 35 weeks? Another example: Why shouldn't it be just as much a crime to kill a child seconds before its birth in comparison to seconds after its birth?

Therefore, abortion can only be justified in order to save the life of another - the mother.
Posted by peterg, Thursday, 9 December 2004 10:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need to look beyond the situation at present. Currently it is legal to abort a child in the womb, if the mother's 'health' is 'at risk'. Also, it is illegal to murder someone, be they a judge or a retarded child. This is how the law stands at present. But the push now is to allow euthanasia for those who choose. Next it will be to euthanase a deformed child after it's born, should the mother choose, then it will be encouraged to be euthanased, perhaps by a Govt grant to the family (i.e., it would be cheaper to give the family $10,000 now to euthanase the child, than to spend $100,000 in carer benefits over the ensueing years). Follow on with the idea, and we may as well euthanase severely handicaped people, then those who are no longer any 'use' to society. Next thing is we have a regime not far from Nazi Germany in 1930's-45!!. Who decides what is right, and where to draw the line?. We need to get back to Biblical standards, for the Lord is the Creator, surely He has the right ideas for living. Yes,in some severe instances an abortion is needed, but they are v. rare. Could not the child be adopted out if the mother does not want it?. There are many couples wanting children who ca'nt have their own, and to adopt out is much easier than all the IVF etc programmes.

It does seem so upside down that a peaceful father should be seperated from his family over Christmas, for wanting to save a babies life, (& perhaps that of the mother, as some do die due to complications after the abortion, and some are known to suicide, due to depression after losing a child through abortion)
Posted by haymaker, Friday, 10 December 2004 4:26:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Mr. Preston, Jeff, Nola and Haymaker. Those who argue that a woman has control of her body conveniently ignore the fact that there is another body involved i.e. the fetus, child [call it what you will] The recent pictures of a child in the womb at various stages should blow the "bunch of cells" argument out of the water. Anyone who says it's not a human life, a child, fetus or whatever is kidding themselves. Self delusion. This tiny helpless human life has rights. If his/her mother won't uphold these rights, then the Law must.

And where do Doctors and Nurses stand in relation to this killing of a helpless human. The Hippocratic Oath [no not the original one - the Modern Version 1964] says: "Above all I must not play at God". Yet isn't that exactly what abortionists and their assistants and consenting mothers are doing, by deciding that a human life must end?
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 10 December 2004 9:56:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy